Emission Trading and climate change

Page 237 of 377 FirstFirst ... 137 187 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 287 337 ... LastLast
Results 11,801 to 11,850 of 18819
  1. #11801
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    dream on!
    You do just what ever you want, Inter - it's your right. However, if you want to take issue with the results of the data analysis in The Cryosphere (the international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of research articles, short communications and review papers on all aspects of frozen water and ground on Earth and on other planetary bodies) TC - Home by Helm, Humbert, and Miller, then by all means publish!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  2. #11802
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Suffering from stage delusion are we? I think there are some 3 people reading this
    Just 3 people, eh? On the ball as always, Marc. You're just a few people short of a picnic.


    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  3. #11803
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You do just what ever you want, Inter - it's your right. However, if you want to take issue with the results of the data analysis in The Cryosphere (the international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of research articles, short communications and review papers on all aspects of frozen water and ground on Earth and on other planetary bodies) TC - Home by Helm, Humbert, and Miller, then by all means publish!
    So why did you think I mentioned backscatter interference which has been raised as issue with the accuracy of this data? Then the other factor totally independent of satellite surface measurements which has to be taken into consideration is the amount of precipitation falling & accumulating over the continent, over such a short timespan its not uncommon to have periods of low or high precipitation, the question is was this amount on the high or low side of the average? if it was low or a "dry" period this would effect the surface levels significantly giving a gross ice loss measurement from the satellite data. precipitation certainty over the antarctic continent is not very accurate & can't be estimated so the satellite data on its own over this period is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike!
    regards inter

  4. #11804
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So why did you think I mentioned ...
    Can't wait to read your paper!

    Look, honestly Inter, obviously there might be issues with the interpretation of the data - that's why peer review of science is so important. But sneer review is not peer review ...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #11805
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Can't wait to read your paper!

    Look, honestly Inter, obviously there might be issues with the interpretation of the data - that's why peer review of science is so important. But sneer review is not peer review ...
    anybody with half a brain can see the gaping holes in the alarmists repertoire & understand the clinging on to anything to verify the cult preachings mentality!
    But if it pleased you it would be the shortest paper ever!
    regards inter

  6. #11806
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    anybody with half a brain can see the gaping holes in the alarmists repertoire & understand the clinging on to anything to verify the cult preachings.
    but if it pleased you it would be the shortest paper ever!
    regards inter
    So where is it? (The short paper that proves everybody else is wrong).

    To help you publish, I'll give you about 100 times what the carbon was costing me per annum. Where do you want me to send the fifty cents to?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  7. #11807
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    A country that imposes the highest 70% income tax may be up there for a welfare state supporter but makes any thinking person cringe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Income tax in Sweden tops out at just over 50%:

    Income tax Sweden has a progressive income tax, the rates for 2014 are as follows:

    • 0% from 0 kr to 18,800 kr (~0 - 2,690 USD)
    • Circa 31% (ca. 7% county and 24% municipality tax): From 18,800 kr to 433,900 kr (~2,690 - 62,140 USD)
    • 31% + 20%: From 433,900 kr to 615,700 kr (~62,140 - 88,180 USD)
    • 31% + 25%: Above 615,700 kr (88,180 USD and up) [4]
    Factually incorrect. Income Tax in Sweden is not 70%, and even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic or global warming.

    It is very clear that you have nothing to counter the on topic behaviour of the Swedish population regarding climate change other than to attack their history and spread misinformation. A common and often repeated behaviour from your quarter.

    Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  8. #11808
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So where is it? (The short paper that proves everybody else is wrong).

    To help you publish, I'll give you about 100 times what the carbon was costing me per annum. Where do you want me to send the fifty cents to?
    it will be written on the back of a postage stamp and you will get 45 cents change as well!

  9. #11809
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post

    Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.
    you would have to have one first for that to happen!
    regards inter

  10. #11810
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    it will be written on the back of a postage stamp and you will get 45 cents change as well!
    I take it you saying the carbon tax would cost you less than 5 cents per year...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  11. #11811
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you would have to have one first for that to happen!
    If you don't think there is a topic here to discuss, what on earth are you doing responding to posts in this forum? (Especially when your science reversing insight into entropy is yet to be presented to the world!)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #11812
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.
    Party pooper!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  13. #11813
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I take it you saying the carbon tax would cost you less than 5 cents per year...
    no, thats the cost to publish, it was pretty obvious!
    regards inter

  14. #11814
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    no, thats the cost to publish, it was pretty obvious!
    Oops - sorry! Where can I send you a postage stamp so you can afford to publish?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  15. #11815
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    If you don't think there is a topic here to discuss, what on earth are you doing responding to posts in this forum? (Especially when your science reversing insight into entropy is yet to be presented to the world!)
    maybe your belt is just a couple of notches too tight then?
    regards inter

  16. #11816
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Oops - sorry! Where can I send you a postage stamp so you can afford to publish?
    What! I'm going to get some carbon tax cash before some starving AGW gold diggers? i nearly fell of my chair in excitement!
    regards inter

  17. #11817
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Good, so we are over the ridiculous panegyric of a country on the basis of their socialist political system and their outrageous welfare state running on atrociously high taxes, (yes 70% is correct) disguised as an ode to their alleged support of the Global warming fraud.

    So lets see what we can read about the global warming soap opera.

    Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients

    Global cooling rather than global warming or “climate change” doomed ancient societies, despite the New York Times’ latest efforts to invent a new global warming alarm. The Times published an articleTuesday claiming “climate change” doomed ancient societies to famine and collapse, but those societies thrived while temperatures were significantly warmer than today. It was only when temperatures cooled that shorter growing seasons and less favorable climate conditions doomed crop production and the food supplies of ancient civilizations.
    The Times noted an extreme and prolonged drought lasting up to 300 years decimated crop production in Greece, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. According to the Times, around 1,200 B.C. “A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to — if not caused — widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities.”
    Ignoring the fact that droughts, crop failures and famines have occurred throughout human history and likely always will, the Times claimed “climate change” must have caused the ancient tragedy.Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients - Forbes


    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  18. #11818
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    So lets see what we can read about the global warming soap opera...
    ...we get yet another episode of retarded story ideas, ludicrous scripts and pretentious over acting. What ever happened to quality programming, eh?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  19. #11819
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ...we get yet another episode of retarded story ideas, ludicrous scripts and pretentious over acting. What ever happened to quality programming, eh?
    denying the truth of the message we see, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies in history of the post?
    regards inter

  20. #11820
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Ignoring the fact that droughts, crop failures and famines have occurred throughout human history and likely always will...
    ..but to conclude therefore that the additional heat in the Earth's weather system as a result of human emissions of CO2 is something inevitable, trivial, unavoidable or whatever, is just logical gibberish.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  21. #11821
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    ..but to conclude therefore that the additional heat in the Earth's weather system as a result of human emissions of CO2 is something inevitable, trivial, unavoidable or whatever, is just logical gibberish.
    are you talking about the same CO2 that in the as past was in high concentrations that never was reliably a cause of global warming, or the 30% increase in CO2 emissions since 1998 that haven't caused global warming?
    what you come out with just typifies the alarmism rubbish that comes forth!
    regards inter

  22. #11822
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

    At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
    At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

    Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  23. #11823
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    WISDOM:

    "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

    "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken

    'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe

    “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire


    The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails fll1v.jpg  
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  24. #11824
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Each of your questions is based on a demonstrable false premise. I refer you to Dr Roy Spenser, grand master of AGW denial:

    Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water

    April 25th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.

    1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.

    7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!

    And if you want to see the rise in the surface temperature since 1998, there's no need to look further than the UAH satellite record, specifically designed to prove the skeptics, and which measures the Earth's surface temperature from space, including the poles - no bodgy data, no heat islands - but wait, it still shows warming!!!!!



    Mike Bromley says:
    April 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM
    Thanks for the clarifications! Too many armchair scientists can spoil the broth.

    +1 from me.



    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  25. #11825
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Each of your questions is based on a demonstrable false premise. I refer you to Dr Roy Spenser, grand master of AGW denial:
    Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water

    April 25th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.

    1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.

    7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!

    And if you want to see the rise in the surface temperature since 1998, there's no need to look further than the UAH satellite record, specifically designed to prove the skeptics, and which measures the Earth's surface temperature from space, including the poles - no bodgy data, no heat islands - but wait, it still shows warming!!!!!



    Mike Bromley says:
    April 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM
    Thanks for the clarifications! Too many armchair scientists can spoil the broth.

    +1 from me.



    still nothing new & relevant to parrot?
    regards inter

  26. #11826
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    There is no point in debating someone that does not have a point.
    What is their point? The greenhouse effect does not exist? Global warming does not exist?
    Those are non debatable opinions. They are based on belief.
    Does God exist?
    Does St Anthony perform miracles?
    If I rub a Budda statue do I have a better chance at lotto?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #11827
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    There is no point in debating someone that does not have a point.
    What is their point? The greenhouse effect does not exist? Global warming does not exist?
    Those are non debatable opinions. They are based on belief.
    Does God exist?
    Does St Anthony perform miracles?
    If I rub a Budda statue do I have a better chance at lotto?
    what are you going on about?
    the point is there is no proof CO2 that the major cause of global warming, or will cause catastrophic global warming, it is just wishfull alarmist rubbish!
    your rubbing your Buddha with the hope your belief is true!
    meanwhile the sane people are waiting for the proof to appear on this, along with the second coming!
    regards inter

  28. #11828
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what are you going on about?
    the point is there is no proof CO2 that the major cause of global warming, or will cause catastrophic global warming, it is just wishfull alarmist rubbish!
    your rubbing your Buddha with the hope your belief is true!
    meanwhile the sane people are waiting for the proof to appear on this, along with the second coming!
    regards inter
    I was just parodying another regular contributor to the forum and I agree that their line of "logical" argument does not make much sense at all.

    Oh, and inter, you are bringing the skeptics into disrepute:

    "Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility."

    Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water « Roy Spencer, PhD
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #11829
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    WISDOM: Blah Blah Balh...
    The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming

    Point of clarification: The 20th century started in ~1901, your graph shows warming starting at 1910, well into the 20th century. Your age would be a flat line at 0 if it were shown in whole centuries, BTW.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  30. #11830
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming
    The horizontal line represents the zero anomaly point of the underlying data. It is not a visual trick, it is a graphical representation of a fact.

    A visual trick would be to increase the scale of the graph (as you suggest) to hide the movement shown in the data. Even if you did that, the graph would not show zero warming, it would show the same amount of warming but it might look 'less' to the ignorant.

    That is how misinformation propaganda is produced.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  31. #11831
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I was just parodying another regular contributor to the forum and I agree that their line of "logical" argument does not make much sense at all.

    Oh, and inter, you are bringing the skeptics into disrepute:

    Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility.

    Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water « Roy Spencer, PhD

    Like didn't you read the rest of the comments shooting down this galahs arguments?
    regards inter

  32. #11832
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Like didn't you read the rest of the comments shooting down this galahs argument?
    regards inter
    I think what Dr Spencer is doing here is cutting off the lunatic fringe from his acolytes. He must be getting some bad rep within academic circles for pandering to the non-science dweebs who fill his comments section with piffle. He's just drawing a line in the sand and sending them off to Curry or Jo's. Can't blame him...

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  33. #11833
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I think what Dr Spencer is doing here is cutting off the lunatic fringe from his acolytes. He must be getting some bad rep within academic circles for pandering to the non-science dweebs who fill his comments section with piffle. He's just drawing a line in the sand and sending them off to Curry or Jo's. Can't blame him...
    You didn't read the comments either obviously! ( or don't understand them?)
    regards inter

  34. #11834
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You didn't read the comments either obviously! ( or don't understand them?)
    regards inter
    I read and understood. No surprise you think that, you'd be happy over there except Roy would probably kick you off.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  35. #11835
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I read and understood. No surprise you think that, you'd be happy over there except Roy would probably kick you off.
    So you agree with the high percentage of comments that give other explanations for global warming other that CO2 & understand that the good Dr had no repudiation of those comments or even a reply. And I can tell you there was no 97% consensus in agreement with him! It's funny how his skeptical arguments don't include the 2 most damning of the CO2 hoax!
    Regards inter

  36. #11836
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper
    "(Popper's) notion was that knowing the truth is impossible. He held that all that one can know is that which is false. By that self same principle, one cannot know that it is true that it was found false. The notion becomes self contradictory." http://junkscience.com/2014/01/07/karl-popper-and-reliable-science/

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

    Had Richard Feynman the opportunity to review the massive evidence for anthropogenic climate change amassed since he died and the consensus position of the National Academy of Sciences I very much doubt that he’d have dismissed global warming as a conspiracy of left wing dunces. Claiming the endorsement of an anti-science position by a highly respected scientist who cannot respond from the grave is the height of arrogance, reminiscent of baptizing the dead into the Mormon faith. http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=41469

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken
    Correction: H. L. MENCKEN 1880-1956 American editor, essayist and philologist
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
    Minority Report, 1956" http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/06/rule-humanity/


    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe
    "Although the accuracy of Goethe's observations does not admit a great deal of criticism, his theory's failure to demonstrate significant predictive validity eventually rendered it scientifically irrelevant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe#Scientific_work

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire
    Tell that to inter....
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  37. #11837
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    China's carbon emission has declined by 5 percent this year, the largest progress in recent years, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...t_18495235.htm

    Regions given deadline for establishing emissions trading

    BEIJING - China's State Council has published a guideline to promote the purchase and trading of emissions permits in regions piloting the program.

    The pilot regions must establish mechanisms for the purchase and trading of emissions rights by 2017 to lay a foundation for the program to be rolled out nationwide, said a statement posted on the government's website on Monday.


    Regions given deadline for establishing emissions trading|Green China|chinadaily.com.cn

    Could a Climate Change Deal Fit China’s Economic Reform Agenda?

    Why an ambitious deal on climate change is much more likely now than it was in Copenhagen in 2009.

    Could a Climate Change Deal Fit China’s Economic Reform Agenda? | The Diplomat
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  38. #11838
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Thank you for all the replies, I do read them as I find the time for that. I notice that most of the time the usual standard reply is the product of a google search on the author of the article or quote, and almost never a reply to the content of the article or quote. Basically nothing to say so therefore no reply from me.

    The reason of course is rather obvious and summed up in the following line taken from the article below: " ... The new stories [about global warming] demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political. This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution."
    So like I repeated ad nauseam in this thread, the exchange of ideas or opinions on this subject are purely for the purpose of displaying one's own bias and conviction, our own political view, the display of a defence because our income depends from the perpetuation of this fraud or any other personal political or economical reason, and clearly never for an interest in finding the truth. So if an article by Jo Blow states an inconvenient truth, the answer will inevitably be that Jo was caught with his pants down and never a sensible well worded reply to what Jo had to say.

    Politics are a funny subject (after all remember, global warming is a fraud invented for political purposes), one takes a position and it seems to be set in concrete for decades. Some people do change allegiances in politics but is is rare and when it happens it is likely to be in relation to the person's age or may be aging rather than any logical reasoning. The swinging voters of course are a different animal, they do not have any allegiance at all, their vote is calculated as "what's in it for me" sort of thing, like the one that goes pentecostal to cure his back pain and then turns catholic to promote his business.

    All in all, there is a lot of entertainment left here, and we may generate a lot of traffic (or not, no idea if the number of people allegedly reading here is at all accurate) but clearly each participant mind is made up as to the validity or irrelevance of the global warming hypothesis and so it is only time that will tell where the truth
    lies.

    Considering that the urgency calls from the warmist side is being increasingly ignored, and seen that the temperatures keep on refusing to collaborate with the ludicrous little toy programs fed to the alarmist computers, and considering that the fraudulent activities to falsify data are uncovered with regularity, it is a matter of time for this soap opera to draw curtains. I wonder if the actors will line up to bow out in unison?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regular readers will have expected the next installment in our tour of Summa Contra Gentiles. This will appear next week after my class is over. I may say that the day-after effects of copious wine and sunshine are more than sufficient proof for God’s divine instruction, and therefore it follows God exists.
    Have you noticed, really noticed, that the concept of proof has all but disappeared from major media stories on global warming?
    Proof-stories are those that say “The science predicted this-and-such, and here is the evidence verifying the prediction.” These were common in the early days of the panic, back in the late ’90s when temperatures cooperated with climate models, but are now as rare as conservatives in Liberal Arts departments.
    The reason is simple: there is little in the way of proof that the dire predictions of global warming are true, and much evidence, plain to the senses, that they are false.
    Global warming stories still appear with the same frequency as before, but they have changed character. The new stories demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political.
    This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution.”
    Take this example from the San Francisco Chronicle, “Democrats use climate change as wedge issue on Republicans“.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  39. #11839
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So you agree with the high percentage of comments that give other explanations for global warming other that CO2 & understand that the good Dr had no repudiation of those comments or even a reply. And I can tell you there was no 97% consensus in agreement with him! It's funny how his skeptical arguments don't include the 2 most damning of the CO2 hoax!
    Regards inter
    I agree that the good Dr drew a line in the sand and his wacko acolytes tried to jump over it with abandon. He attracts plenty of loonies who want him to go beyond a position that can be supported by the science. He is smart enough to know when to stop and cast them off. A lack of response to a comment on his blog does not equal acceptance of that comment. Repudiating comments from such people is a waste of time as you have demonstrated and he obviously understands. You should join!

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  40. #11840
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    I agree that the good Dr drew a line in the sand and his wacko acolytes tried to jump over it with abandon. He attracts plenty of loonies who want him to go beyond a position that can be supported by the science. He is smart enough to know when to stop and cast them off. A lack of response to a comment on his blog does not equal acceptance of that comment. Repudiating comments from such people is a waste of time as you have demonstrated and he obviously understands. You should join!
    i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders, just shows the mentality of the cult & have no idea how stupid it makes them look! History has shown time & time & time again that this is a fundamental human flaw of the inbuilt social herd instinct.
    come up with some relevant believable facts & all but a few will believe it!
    regards inter

  41. #11841
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders, just shows the mentality of the cult & have no idea how stupid it makes them look! History has shown time & time & time again that this is a fundamental human flaw of the inbuilt social herd instinct.
    come up with some relevant believable facts & all but a few will believe it!
    regards inter
    I love it when people make irrational assumptions without doing their homework. Dr Spencer is not a supporter of the general consensus on climate change, he's on your side, he just doesn't want to be associated with the more extreme denier rabble that you apparently support.

    Who would have guessed?

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  42. #11842
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders
    Er, you are getting a bit mixed up about which "side" Dr Roy Spenser is on. He is certainly not any leader of the pro AGW science rationalists you are always attacking. Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  43. #11843
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    >>woodbe: Snap!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  44. #11844
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Er, you are getting a bit mixed up about which "side" Dr Roy Spenser is on. He is certainly not any leader of the pro AGW science rationalists you are always attacking. Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD
    "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, "
    I'm not quoting anything from this fellow, but you guys are! And with a stance like that who would? Unless your whole world rotates around unfounded belief!
    Regards inter

  45. #11845
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming...
    You mean the declaration with this caveat?:

    "While our signatures express our endorsement only of this Declaration and do not imply agreement with every point..."


    Honestly, your "side" needs to go and have a big punch-up and come back when two or more of you who don't believe in God can at least agree on one thing about climate science...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  46. #11846
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    You mean the declaration with this caveat?:

    "While our signatures express our endorsement only of this Declaration and do not imply agreement with every point..."


    Honestly, your "side" needs to go and have a big punch-up and come back when two or more of you who don't believe in God can at least agree on one thing about climate science...
    what ever that means? Any normal person wouldn't have been a signatory to it!
    regards inter

  47. #11847
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    denying the truth of the message we see, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies in history of the post?
    regards inter
    ...my comment had nothing much at all to do with the linked 'article' in Marc's post. It was more about Marc's "what we can read about the global warming soap opera" comment. Thank you for your contribution.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  48. #11848
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post

    The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming
    Oh for the love of statistics...that is such an ignorant statement you've found there about that graph that the fall to that depth could kill a normal person...count me as 'gobsmacked'.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  49. #11849
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.

    At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.
    At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

    Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming
    Did it occur to you to enquire of the BoM as to their view and reasoning on the matter? I'm not interested as to whether one accepts their reasoning...merely that you (or the other mob) might've even tried to find out.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  50. #11850
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The new stories [about global warming] demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political. This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution."
    It's not so much the science that's political....it's actually the human response to it. As for expecting a 'solution' to AGW...not a hope in hell. The soap opera has quite a ways yet to run...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

Page 237 of 377 FirstFirst ... 137 187 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 287 337 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •